Bangladesh's ‘rickshaw faculty’: a nadir of academic exploitation

I am an academic with a British post-graduate degree and I have worked for couple of private universities in Bangladesh as a full-time faculty member. I found your article on private universities in Bangladesh (and the research by Mr. Matt Husain that the article is based on) to be one-sided, biased and flawed. The article (and the research) is very one-sided because it presents a very pessimistic view of the private university sector in Bangladesh, from which it appears that there are only negatives about the sector. I feel this is extremely detrimental for the global image of this sector. The article and the research completely ignore the positive changes and prospects that the private sector has brought for higher education in Bangladesh. The public sector education in Bangladesh has long been plagued by pervasive problems like impacts of politics, bureaucracy, and absence of healthy academic environment. In the early 1990s, private sector gave an alternative platform to many students, who would otherwise choose to go abroad for their higher education. Ever since, private university sector in Bangladesh saw many hurdles in its journey and today it is a very promising force in the growth of Bangladesh’s higher education. However, the promising revolution brought by the private universities have mostly been underestimated and underrepresented. In most cases, the whole sector has been grossly misrepresented in the media by painting it with a broad brush. Unfortunately, when ‘smart intellectuals’ like Mr. Matt Husain hypothesize about these universities, they partially emphasize all the negatives, as if nothing good is being done by them. It is also not acceptable that some people indiscriminately disparage the whole sector, instead of pointing out to the inept monitoring mechanisms, and some crooked institutions that are responsible for defaming the image of this promising sector. Our private universities have achieved some amazing feats over the last couple of decades. For example, many of them have built their own state-of-the-art campuses, with adequate research and academic facilities. Many of these universities have faculty members with globally recognized post-graduate and PhD degrees from top ranked universities in the world. Moreover, many of these universities have numerous student activity programs and specialized clubs to involve students in extracurricular activities like community services, sports, photography, music, debating, drama and a diverse range of cultural programs. Many of these universities also offer a wide range of scholarships to meritorious students. Most importantly, many of these private universities and their schools have achieved international accolades and accreditations (like ACBSP). Academics and schools from most of these universities are actively engaged in research, consulting and community services. Although it is also true that we need to expand our research portfolio more, which requires institutional funding as well as patronization apart from willingness and capacity. I have also seen enormous potentials in students in these universities. I really do not know how Mr. Matt Husain has evaluated the intellectual potential of such a large mass of students and so disgracefully regarded them as ‘zombie graduates’. I don’t know if he has conducted a scientifically objective IQ test of students and compared them to the IQ of students from public institutions or foreign universities. He cannot make such baseless, subjective claims, especially if he doesn’t have any experience of teaching private university students for a sizable amount of time. To be honest, as a teacher who taught at two private universities in the Bangladesh I have seen enormous potentials in students in these universities. Obviously, I am going to back my argument up with some evidences. Alumni from private universities are working successfully in different local and international organizations and many of them have proven to be the leaders in their respective fields. Graduates from private universities in Bangladesh are currently working in banks, telecom firms, media houses, IT firms, NGOs, consulting firms, manufacturing organizations, government firms and all other sectors. And if Mr. Matt Husain is able to broaden his short-sighted, almost blind, ‘zombie-like perspective’, he will be able to see that private university graduates are contributing significantly into the growth and development of these sectors. In that way private universities are developing competent human resources for the emerging economy of Bangladesh. Moreover, I have seen students from these universities winning numerous global awards and competitions on business case solving, debating, computer programming, business plan constructions, sports and community services. It is true that like any other institution in Bangladesh and around the world there are students with different levels of skills and merits in private universities as well. We must understand that there are multifaceted factors behind a student’s lack of certain skills. These factors include weakness in secondary education systems and lack of language trainings from an early age. However, it would be highly unfair to say that it is only the limitation in our private university education system which is responsible for such lacking. I hope Mr. Husain should be a bit more scientific and logical in determining the variables in his research. It is also unfair to use a disparaging term like ‘zombie graduates’ to label all of the students, as this contradicts some of the core principles of academic research by making it biased and stereotypical. I found the terms ‘zombie graduates’ and ‘rickshaw faculty’ to be particularly disgraceful as these terms undermine the achievements and qualifications of a large group of students and faculty, an entire academic community. I also found some factual errors in the article (which refers to the research of Matt Husain). According to the article only ’10 percents of the academics in the private universities have permanent posts’. This information is completely wrong. Here again it seems Mr. Husain is collecting his facts from the world of zombies. A very small proportion of faculties in private universities are part-timers. Most of the universities have a large body of full-time faculty members and according to the rules stated in their job contacts they are prohibited to teach in more than one university. The article also mentions that ‘a faculty member earns 150 British Pounds in a semester’, which also seems to be contradictory because most university teachers do not get paid on a semester-basis. Full-time faculties get monthly salaries, which is much higher than what has been mentioned in the article. The salaries of part time faculties usually vary depending on the institution and number of courses the taught by an individual in a particular semester. The claim also appears to be highly unrealistic that a university lecturer is likely to be teaching at 15-20 universities. It appears Mr. Husain only had super-zombies in his sample frame. At the same time, it’s also not true that all board members and owners of these universities have banking businesses and they are exploiting students by offering high-interest bank loans. It is quite natural that most private sector initiatives are undertaken by wealthy industrialists and financially capable people. However, initiators of these universities come from different sectors, including businessmen, academics, socialites and philanthropists. As far as the allegations on bank loans are concerned, Bangladesh is a country where obtaining a student loan is not very easy and it is also not factual that banks offer student loans at an astoundingly high 40% interest rate. You can check with any commercial bank in Bangladesh about the matter. Most students in the private universities fund their education by themselves, without any student loan, and in many cases they receive merit based scholarships, and hardship funds from the universities based on their academic performance. The truth is like any other sector in Bangladesh, private universities also have their strengths and weaknesses. It takes time for a sector like this to be fully established. However, in order to reach that threshold these institutions need adequate appreciation and patronization by the relevant stakeholders. It is absolutely undeniable that many of these universities have resource shortages, mismanagement, and lack of infrastructure and absence of good governance. However, it will not be fair to compare our private universities with long-established top ranked universities in the developed countries. In his research Mr. Husain should have factored in the economic, political and social realities of Bangladesh to understand the fact that even if a private university in our country wants it may not be able to recruit all PhD holders as faculties or get over all its limitations overnight. The cost of higher education in Bangladesh is comparably low. Our university authorities often struggle to offer a high quality education at an affordable cost. Balancing the quality against cost becomes even more arduous in an unstable political and economic context. Even in many universities in developed countries there are mismanagement and bureaucracies despite their very high costs of education. In the eyes of some people riding on a rickshaw might be a sign of disgrace. Mr. Matt Husain doesn’t seem to understand that ‘rickshaw’ is a part of our country’s cultural heritage and it’s the only affordable vehicle for the middle-income people in Bangladesh. In that regard, he seems to lack cultural intelligence and respect for cultural diversity. Although I think his understanding of the economic and social paradigms of South Asian countries is as primitive as a rickshaw.

Thanks matt for your eexcellent report. This report is true. I am a rickshaw faculty.

I tend to agree with Matt Husain’s assertion that many of the private university lecturer are ‘‘exploited but they feel they can’t do anything about it.” However, I find his associated claims about the quality of education and students is outright fallacious and does not pass the test of academic rigor by any margin. First, making a causal claim of ‘producing uncritical ‘zombie’ student’ by depicting the exploitative nature of the BD’s private HE system and dramatizing it with a pic of a faculty travelling in a rickshaw defies the basic principle of causation (i.e. for the conclusion to be true, the premises must be true). Second, ethnography is a recognized qualitative methods to study social phenomenon provided one is able to address its weaknesses, most notably extended time requirement, reliability, Hawthorne effect, effective collation of diverse data, etc. Husain’s study seems to disqualify on most of these grounds. It is exceptionally rare to arrive at any conclusion on a social phenomenon by six week’s ethnographic study. One of my fellow PhD student applying this method in Palestinians view of terrorism has spent two years in the location and yet his conclusions are tentative and remains seriously challenged. The article also claims that ‘Husain’s knowledge of the system is personal’. This adds additional challenge for Husain and we don’t know how much of his conclusion is a personal reflection in the veil naming a methodology that sounds quite mouthful. Third, the article claims that what he (i.e. Husain) found ‘‘makes even the worst cases of academic exploitation in the West look tame in comparison.’’ This is not only an unsupported but also unnecessary claim that reflects his lack of knowledge. One only needs to watch the Al Jazeera’s investigative reporting ‘‘Shattered Dream’’ to comprehend the level of exploitation in some UK HE institutes. Clearly Hussain did not have the privy to such widely available sources. Fourth, ethnographic study ' produce situated knowledge rather than universals. Thus the findings are inadequate in representativeness and generalisability, two key criteria of validity in sociological research. While Husain might be right in a particular instance of a particular University in BD using a focus group discussion, but the deterministic claim made in his paper is difficult if not impossible to attain by the very method he used. That said, I don’t think Husain’s article is part of any neo-orientalism or a sadist/racist attempt to undermine the BD PU education system or quality. It is a mere academic work with a flawed application of methodology, lacking the causal connections and drawing highly questionable and unsupported conclusions. I hope with better supervisions at the University of Columbia, he will be able to produce papers that can withstand the required academic rigor. However, It will be a different thing if he believes in the mantra like Trump, 'no publicity is a bad publicity'.

I read this supplement by David Mathews and read Matt Husain original paper. I think this is a well written and time piece. I like how Husain provides the historical, cultural, and social perspectives in a post-colonial country and the application of hegemony. The author also repetitively mentions in the original paper that the existing practices in HE in Bangladesh can create Zombies and I agree with him. As a rickshaw faculty alum, I agree with Husain's findings and I admire him for writing the first ever well balanced paper on issues of HE in Bangladesh. Finally, there are few other important findings which we cannot also ignore. “The political elite and their surrogates get the licenses for new banks and private universities,” Husain explains. Gaining permits for universities “depends on who you know in the system”. This is 100% true in the case of Bangladesh. I sense my previous respondent is yet to read the original paper. And that's why became slightly emotional.

Both my husband and I were Rickshaw Faculties in Bangladeshi private universities. Before migrating to Australia, we each taught at 9 to 10 private universities in Dhaka. While we Rickshaw Faculties were treated as dispensable cheap labour, the few permanent faculty members, who in fact were tenured at Dhaka University or elsewhere, came to teach at private universities at fat salaries and used to moonlight at various development agencies while being on ‘lien’ (‘on leave’) from public universities for three years at a time. I like how this fact is highlighted through Matt Husain’s qualitative research. My husband is an Electrical Engineer and I am an Economist and we both read Matt Husain’s original paper and shared it with our South Asian and Australian friends. We are in agreement this paper touches upon issues that are relevant not only in Bangladesh but also respectively in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Australia. Finally, what I was personally drawn to this paper was it admires the concept of private HE while elaborates on the imbalanced application of economics and philosophy in higher education governance. I have not read such as a well-balanced paper on Bangladeshi HE. Moreover, this paper touches upon the role of Dhaka’s “New Money” or so called local elites who treats HE as a money making opportunity. My husband and I both could not help laughing at the emotional monologues shared by the two respondents in this comments section. Those colonial monologues lack critical assessment to say the least.

Hi, I'm a lowly student who graduated from such a private university am currently doing a research from Dhaka university, which is supposedly the best public university here. I know both worlds and I feel I should leave a comment. All of this is true, accurate, and not an exaggeration by any human standards. Everyone who is half-good, and open to critical thought would be open about this. Students here are all zombies and critical thought is a crime here. And about the first poster who also named himself, I must point out these are the people who make critical thought a crime here. As MM Hussain said, Private Universities are there for their "fat allowance". (And monopoly of free foreign travel expenses) A wall of insecure text doesn't improve your argument much. What is simple to understand to the mind and easy to verify with eyes require little shilling. Pertaining to the supposed "British post-graduate degree", I feel I should say something as well. I have a professor from my private university who lives in my street a few blocks away. He has a "British post-graduate degree" from Cambridge. Yep, the Cambridge. He got that degree simply through manipulation of the goodwill of British professors who keep looking for any efforts to improve third world countries like ours and grant funds for this reason. The academia in our country know about this, and they come up with the simplest of papers; papers that have little in substance and content, have nothing to do with advancing science and shun any kind of rigorous study. These papers all have but one thing in common: our poor country. Or some way to improve our country, some herbals of our country, and as such. Most of the research of the academia here, almost knowingly, manipulate and emotionally blackmail foreign faculty and make them believe we are doing something for the "sake of our country". And this is why the foreign professors get tricked into accepting papers of lower quality, zero citations and no scientific use and enable these professors a free tour. I wish professors would be made aware of this, because the kind of professors they are now granting funds, are there only for the free tour. When they return they make critical thought an unforgivable crime, and try to destroy the academic career of students who try to go above them. Obviously because of their ego complexes from the "British degree". This particular professor used to teach us statistics. By teach, I mean write down problems from the book and memorizing solutions. I have not learned one word from him, and not a single one of my class can do a simple regression analysis. I have taught myself statistics and programming in R, and every minute I had to sit in this person's class was a waste from my life. If I didn't write the solution the way it was on his sheets, he would've failed me. I never mentioned anything about whatever I taught myself, if I did, he would've failed me. I must say I was very lucky, I have seen careers of many students destroyed by professors of these kinds. If these professors were for science or for academia they would have had papers which are cited those which advance science, they would have proven themselves through their hard work not by mentioning our country's name. I hope to leave for a post graduate degree hopefully soon, to get better education and serve my country. and I truly hope that my paper, which doesn't have anything to do with my country, would be judged to be of better value because someone saw the academic value in it. And unlike people who just want a better life from the generosity of western countries, and claim to be academics, and have great ego complexes to deserve a "rich life" I'm not that great. Nor do I want to be rich. I'm a lowly student who just wants to have a good education, and then come back to serve my country. Even if the academia here doesn't accept me, I'll work in the industrial sector, because all true knowledge exists for one purpose- the betterment of humans around us.